US Supreme Court stresses "context" in upholding Title VII discrimination case

The US Supreme Court entered a decision today in the matter of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, a Title VII case regarding its anti-retaliation provisions. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court:
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination against "any individual" based on that individual's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." … A separate section of the Act--its anti-retaliation provision--forbids an employer from "discriminat[ing] against" an employee or job applicant because that individual "opposed any practice" made unlawful by Title VII or "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a Title VII proceeding or investigation…
We conclude that the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In the present context that means that the employer's actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s award of $43,000 to Ms. White for her troubles (37 day suspension without pay during the Christmas season, et al) after issuing a series of complaints in a non-constructive work environment. That last sentence of the above opinion is very telling, in that the Court unanimously (9-0) establishes the importance of “context” in establishing which employer actions (i.e., those which are “materially adverse to a reasonable employee”) would be deemed harmful, such that they would convince a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination.